The Australian Financial Review magazine recently published a fashion article with models set against beautiful forest images. While no claims were made about “green” credentials by the brands involved, is this a case of greenwashing?
The article was titled Woodland Nymphs and appeared in the magazine dated April 2008.
Greenwashing is the unjustified association of a brand, a company, or a policy with environmental virtues.
It is a risky strategy because there is a high likelihood that the perpetrator will be caught out, resulting in damage to their image. While consumers (and business decision makers) want action on the environment, they are sceptical about motives and will closely examine the veracity of any eco-friendly claims or implied associations. They will be assisted in this vetting by environmental organisations and, increasingly, by government regulators and watchdogs.
As an example, the New South Wales Greens (a political party with a strong environment focus) complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about Saab’s claims that its cars were green. Saab’s “Grrrrrreen” billboard, newspaper and internet ads claimed the cars were green because the company would plant 17 trees to offset the first year of carbon dioxide emissions.
But the trees will only absorb the first year of emissions over a period of many decades (the life of the tree) and there was no provision for absorbing emissions from the second and subsequent years – nor for the carbon dioxide produced during manufacture, importing the cars, and eventually disposing of it.
The ACCC has instituted legal proceedings, alleging that the ads were misleading, against GM Holden which markets Saab in Australia.